Ok, it's specific. But in this case you also admitted it's obvious. Patents aren't ever supposed to be obvious and hence the reason I said it's simply an optimized boot routine. There are any number of ways to speed up an OS boot by varying amounts. If they allowed a patent on all of them, no one would ever be able to write any code for fear of breaking someone's patent. Anyone who has programmed knows how you do something can be very different in terms of efficiency with just a few call changes, even. Code can be compatible with other code and still not be close to identical. LIke I said, there are many ways to skin a cat. Copyrights should be more than sufficient to protect software.
Oh, so if they stored it in NVRam or even a motorized and computer controlled abacus instead, then it doesn't violate the patent?
Do you see how stupid this stuff gets in a very short amount of time under patent law? A patent should be along the lines of a diagram of a water powered mill design to ground flour a certain way. If someone else makes a design that uses a water powered mill that does it a different way, that should not violate the patent. A patent should be specific, not at all obvious and not built upon on a natural process or other previous ideas. Patents should be a relatively rare thing, not something handed out for every nut and bolt part. A new advanced method to create an alloy with previously unknown properties might be a good candidate. It's something that takes research and advanced knowledge to create, not someone looking at a cloud and seeing a 'super man' and deciding to patent a toy line of 'action figures' and so no one else is allowed to make super hero action figures. It's that specific character that needed protection (copyright) not the entire concept of action figures, comic books, etc. But it's the latter that patents protect.
Anyone else that creates something that does the same basic thing, even if in a different way with different code (having never seen the code in question in uncompiled form), they get sued. And hell, with the U.S. Court system, even if they aren't in violation they can get sued right out of business due to a lack of money to defend themselves. The system sucks and it discourages development of products that would offer more choices to the consumer. But then, that's what big businesses want. They would rather pay BILLIONS for a patent so they can 'monopolize' (in a sense) an entire market or sub-market than just compete for the consumer's dollars with the best product. That's because it's not about Capitalism (whose heart is competition), it's just about basic greed and any way to get there is OK.
Yeah and how many on here spend their entire posting histories worshiping Apple? It's none of your bloody business what their opinions are or how they post. This isn't the church of Apple forums. We don't have to like the company to use their products. Get over it.
Oh BULLCRAP. That example is a perfect one. They issued a flipping patent based on both derivative and obvious use of prior works. The person did NOT invent GPS or telescopes. Connecting one to the other is not flipping rocket science nor does it take a genius to figure it out. The fact someone could write in an suggest it without a single thought towards making a dime and ends up screwing everyone out of reasonable priced options shows how freaking stupid these patent offices are and how screwed up the system is. (now comes the usual posturing reply in return
)
Last edited:
